Watermark question. :)

[OcLove]

I have a question regarding the placing of a watermark. I've came across a few images that have placement in different spots and ways. I always thought it might look better being placed uniformed either on the bottom right or bottom
Left. But recently came across an image that it was coming off from the side towards the center. As tho it was coming out of a tunnel. Like a cone view. Small (center point) to big outer side point. Not sure if that makes much sense. Question is: does it matter on placement of a watermark? And is it best to somehow place it on the object or person that the picture is of. Since that's mainly the purpose of a watermark?

Hope I didn't sound too confusing. I apologize. Thanks for for ur time and help

 

[TCampbell]

I strongly dislike it when a watermark is prominently displayed in a photo. To me, a watermark shouldn't look cool or catchy. It's there for two very basic reasons: (1) it identifies the maker of the image and serves as a subtle form of copyright (although copyright embedded in the image but not visible is just as valid.) (2) a professional photographer can use it as a tiny non-obtrusive ad so if a viewer really wants to know "Who took that photo? I want to hire them!" then they can find you. I set the opacity pretty low so that it doesn't up-stage the subject in the photo.

Apart from that, a watermark is graffiti. Look at famous paintings... they didn't graffiti their name across the art. They scribbled it inconspicuously into a corner and/or sometimes disguised it into the art so that it wouldn't be very noticeable.

 

[480sparky]

I don't batch watermark anything. Every image I post has a wm placed in a place I feel is inconspicuous, using colors from the image itself.

 

[Jaemie]

^^ I completely agree with TCampbell.

Keep it very small and about 30% opaque and confined to a (preferably) lower corner.

 

[50mm]

Hi Oclove. I'm a novice, but am catching on real fast to this Lightroom 4 program. It will let you position the watermark anywhere. From what I have learned on this forum the smaller the watermark the better. My Avatar is the how not to do a watermark example, but I'm sure you already knew that.
Placement hmmmm........ not sure, but anywhere that it doesn't distract from the subject sounds wise.
Now as far as the tunnel/cone type view watermark, well I really don't know that either. Blank. Nothing. Sorry. But it does sound unique and artistic.
I mainly just wanted to stop in and say Hi.

 

[50mm]

I strongly dislike it when a watermark is prominently displayed in a photo. To me, a watermark shouldn't look cool or catchy. It's there for two very basic reasons: (1) it identifies the maker of the image and serves as a subtle form of copyright (although copyright embedded in the image but not visible is just as valid.) (2) a professional photographer can use it as a tiny non-obtrusive ad so if a viewer really wants to know "Who took that photo? I want to hire them!" then they can find you. I set the opacity pretty low so that it doesn't up-stage the subject in the photo.

Apart from that, a watermark is graffiti. Look at famous paintings... they didn't graffiti their name across the art. They scribbled it inconspicuously into a corner and/or sometimes disguised it into the art so that it wouldn't be very noticeable.

Right on TC! Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[480sparky]

....... Look at famous paintings... they didn't graffiti their name across the art. They scribbled it inconspicuously into a corner and/or sometimes disguised it into the art so that it wouldn't be very noticeable.

The Great Masters didn't have images thieves on the innernets to contend with. You really didn't see millions of Mona Lisa's crop up in art galleries in 1506.

 

[50mm]

I think TC and Sparky are in complete agreement with each other from what I read.

 

[rexbobcat]

I don't use one. I did a little while back, but it's just another step in my workflow that is tedious and requires me to save yet another copy of my photos.

It's just a hassle that may or may not have any effect. If I was well known I would use one for vanity reasons but I'm not so....

 

[KmH]

A watermark is nearly invisible, and takes some searching to see.

If what you add to an image is readily readable, it's not a watermark, it's a signature, logo, or a copyright statement.

 

[480sparky]

Not all watermarks need to be visible. And not in the exif data, either.

There are ways to wm an image that only you can discover.

 

[OcLove]

HOPE THIS WORKS TO REMOVE IT. IN CASE IT DOESN'T. THIS IS NOT MY WORK
Here's the link. Hopefully it works. If not, then I tried.

 

[rexbobcat]

Not all watermarks need to be visible. And not in the exif data, either.

There are ways to wm an image that only you can discover.

But then what's the point...

 

[480sparky]

Not all watermarks need to be visible. And not in the exif data, either.

There are ways to wm an image that only you can discover.

But then what's the point...

If they're gonna steal it, they'll steal it with or without a visible wm. Proving the image is yours right in front of them is priceless.

 

[MTVision]

This ISN'T My work, but the example I was trying to describe and how they placed it purposely I'm sure a tiny but on his head for the reason it's there

FYI: You should edit your post to erase the photo and just post the link to it - it's against forum rules to post another's work.

I have a photographer friend who puts their logo (not a watermark) on all her photos online. It's a small little logo and she places it in different spots everytime - usually near the subjects head so that the logo cannot be cropped out. If you are trying to make it so people can't just cut it out and print the picture then you will have to determine the place for every image. If you just want your name on your images then placement doesn't really matter IMO.